Specific Performance – Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell land – Appellant/plaintiff entered agreement with respondent no. 4, the Power of Attorney holder of other respondents, for purchase of land – Initial agreement dated 26.09.1995 with earnest money paid and extensions granted – Sale deed executed in favor of other respondents during the extension period – Plaintiff sued for specific performance after discovering the sale – Trial Court decreed in favor of plaintiff – High Court reversed, dismissing the suit – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision.

Agreement Validity – Assessment – Held – Initial agreement not executed by all co-owners – Defendant no. 1 signed as Power of Attorney holder but the agreement did not specify this role clearly – Power of Attorney not produced or proved in Trial Court – High Court correctly found that agreement was not binding on all co-owners. [Paras 6-7]

Plaintiff's Non-Appearance – Legal Implication – Held – Plaintiff did not appear as a witness, instead Power of Attorney holder deposed – Legal position prohibits Power of Attorney holder from testifying on matters requiring principal's personal knowledge and cross-examination – Non-appearance of plaintiff in specific performance suits seen as detrimental – High Court rightly disallowed deposition of Power of Attorney holder in place of plaintiff. [Paras 8-13]

Delay and Limitation – Suit for specific performance filed on last day of limitation – Cited legal precedents stress prompt action in specific performance suits – Delays viewed unfavorably – Supreme Court found suit was filed with unreasonable delay despite knowledge of adverse sale – Specific performance denied. [Paras 14-18]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment and decree upheld – Suit for specific performance denied due to lack of valid agreement by all co-owners, plaintiff's non-appearance, and delay in filing suit. [Paras 19-20]

Termination of Dealership - Procedural Compliance - Appeal against High Court order affirming the quashing of dealership termination for violation of procedural norms during sample collection - Appellants contended that the dealership was terminated due to violations of the dealership agreement clauses and that SGS India, the agency appointed for sample collection, was authorized under Marketing Discipline Guidelines - Respondent challenged the validity of the sample collection process by SGS India, arguing it violated Clause 7 of the Control Order, which mandates sample collection by specific authorized officers - Single Judge and Division Bench upheld the respondent's contention, finding procedural lapses in sample collection and testing.

Procedural Lapses - Clause 7 of Control Order - The High Court found that SGS India lacked authority under Clause 7 of the Control Order to collect samples and the entire process was flawed as the required authorized officers were not involved - The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s decision, emphasizing the need for compliance with statutory procedures.

Sample Collection Authority - The appellants argued that the Marketing Discipline Guidelines permitted third-party agencies to collect samples - Supreme Court held that while the guidelines allowed administrative convenience, they could not override statutory provisions - The respondent was not prosecuted under the Control Order, rather the dealership was terminated for breach of contractual terms.

Judicial Discipline - Supreme Court noted adherence to principles laid down in prior judgments - Held that dealership termination must strictly comply with procedural rules and guidelines - Following the precedent in R.M. Service Centre, termination was justified if based solely on contractual breaches without violating statutory procedures.

Decision - Appeals allowed - Supreme Court found the dealership termination valid as per the terms of the agreement and procedural compliance under Marketing Discipline Guidelines - Noted no prosecutable offense under the Control Order, thus adherence to its procedural requirements was unnecessary for this case.

Criminal Law – SC/ST Act – Appeal against the order directing registration of FIR and prosecution of public servant – Complaint by Respondent No. 2 alleging caste-based insults at an equestrian training academy – High Court directed registration of FIR and prosecution of the SHO for not acting on the complaint – Supreme Court quashed the FIR and set aside the prosecution order – Held that allegations did not meet the public view requirement under the SC/ST Act – Complaint did not disclose cognizable offense under the Act – Order for prosecution of public servant without administrative enquiry recommendation invalid – FIR and consequent orders quashed. [Paras 1-29]

Public View Requirement – Analysis – Held – Intentional insult or intimidation must occur within public view – Allegations did not specify the public context required under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act – WhatsApp group chats and private settings not sufficient to meet the public view standard. [Para 20-21]

Prosecution of Public Servant – Section 4 of SC/ST Act – Held – Proviso to Section 4 requires administrative enquiry and recommendation for prosecution – High Court order bypassing this requirement is unsustainable – Protection for public servants in performing duties under the Act is crucial to avoid frivolous complaints. [Para 13-16]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and prosecution order – Supreme Court quashes the FIR and the order directing prosecution of the SHO – Complaint against appellants does not constitute offenses under the SC/ST Act – High Court's orders set aside. [Paras 27-29]

Corporate Law - Renewal of Mining Leases - Civil appeals against High Court orders regarding the renewal of mining leases originally granted to Bird and Company Limited, subsequently vested in Bharat Process & Mechanical Engineers Limited (BPMEL), now in liquidation - Central Government and State of Odisha opposed the renewal of leases - High Court at Calcutta directed the formation of a High-Powered Committee to decide on renewal, which was challenged by the Government of Odisha and TGP Equity Management Private Limited.

Corporate Liquidation - Role of Official Liquidator and Creditor Rights - Analysis - Held - No practical or feasible benefit in renewing leases for a defunct company with substantial liabilities - Power of attorney given to OMDC terminated upon liquidation of BPMEL - TGP, as an assignee of UCO Bank, entitled to pursue claims in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956 - Workers' dues to be settled per statutory provisions. [Paras 31-37]

Decision - Appeals by State of Odisha allowed, and High Court’s order for a High-Powered Committee set aside - TGP's appeals dismissed - Applications for renewal of mining leases treated as rejected or dismissed - Proceedings to continue in Company Court for settlement of dues as per law. [Paras 38-39]

Criminal Law - Compliance with Procedural Requirements - Appeal against High Court's decision confirming partial cognizance by Special Judge, NIA - High Court found that the complaint was in accordance with Section 4(1)(e) of CrPC, 1989 and that Section 196-B did not mandate a preliminary investigation - Held that Special Judge, NIA erred in concluding non-compliance with Section 196-A of CrPC, 1989 regarding authorization for prosecution under Section 120-B of RPC, 1989 - High Court's decision on non-cognizance under Sections 121, 121-A, and 122 of RPC, 1989 upheld - Directions given to comply with Section 196-A for proper authorization - Liberty given to appellant to seek appropriate authorization - Appeal allowed in part. [Paras 1-36]

Application of Procedural Law - Retrospective vs. Prospective Application - Act, 2019 and CrPC, 1973 application from appointed day - Held that CrPC, 1973 cannot be applied retrospectively to cure non-compliance under CrPC, 1989 - Continuation of investigation under CrPC, 1989 permissible but cognizance to follow CrPC, 1973 only post appointed day - Emphasized mandatory compliance with Section 196-A of CrPC, 1989 for prosecution authorization. [Paras 18-26, 30-33]

Curable Procedural Defect - Special Judge, NIA's decision to not take cognizance under Section 120-B of RPC, 1989 due to procedural non-compliance - High Court correctly interpreted mandatory nature of authorization - Procedural defect identified as curable, enabling appellant to rectify by obtaining proper authorization. [Paras 34-35]

Decision: Appeal was allowed in part, with specific directions to comply with the procedural mandate of Section 196-A of CrPC, 1989, for appropriate authorization. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Imposition of Reliability Charges – Validity – Appeal against Tribunal’s order setting aside reliability charges imposed on bulk consumers by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. – Tribunal held that continuous process industries like the 1st respondent, which were already paying higher tariffs, could not be subjected to additional reliability charges – Supreme Court upholds Tribunal’s decision, finding no statutory basis for reliability charges under the Act or Regulations – Appeal dismissed.

Imposition of Reliability Charges – Continuous Process Industries – Tribunal noted higher tariff rates for continuous process industries on express feeders, compared to non-continuous industries – Held that additional reliability charges were unjustified – Tribunal’s findings confirmed by Supreme Court. [Paras 6-11]

Statutory Appeal – Section 111 of Electricity Act, 2003 – Entitlement to Appeal – Tribunal noted that the 1st respondent, directly affected by the levy, was entitled to appeal despite not participating in the public hearing – Supreme Court agrees, holding that non-participation does not bar statutory appeals. [Para 8]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court finds no merit in the appeal and dismisses it, confirming the Tribunal's order to set aside the reliability charges imposed on the 1st respondent. [Para 12]

Civil Law – Landlord-Tenant Dispute – West Bengal Tenancy Act vs. Transfer of Property Act – Applicability in framing issues – Supreme Court's consideration of interlocutory applications during pendency of Special Leave Petitions – Directions for deposit of occupational charges based on market rent rates during dispute period upheld. The Supreme Court addressed whether the West Bengal Tenancy Act, 1997, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, should apply to a landlord-tenant dispute. The High Court had held the Tenancy Act applicable, leading to the dismissal of suits for eviction and recovery of possession. During the pendency of Special Leave Petitions, the Supreme Court directed the tenant to deposit occupational charges based on prevailing market rates due to non-payment of rent, ensuring equitable compensation for the landlord. [Paras 1-25]

Legal Interpretation – Determination of Lease – Concept and implications – Tenant at sufferance and obligation to pay mesne profits – Jurisprudence on rent and mesne profits during eviction proceedings – Principles from Atma Ram Properties and other landmark cases applied. The Court delved into the definitions and consequences of lease determination, forfeiture, and expiry, affirming that tenants continuing possession post-lease expiry owe mesne profits. Legal precedents underscored the landlord's right to compensation equivalent to market rent during such periods. The Court referenced significant judgments to substantiate its directive for occupational charges, highlighting equitable justice and the landlord's right to reasonable rent akin to market rates. [Paras 16-20]

Decision – Directions for deposit of occupational charges – Affirmation of trial court's findings on jurisdiction and maintainability – Conditions imposed for compliance by tenant – Final adjudication pending Special Leave Petitions – Appeal proceedings scheduled. The Court ordered the respondent to deposit INR 5,15,05,512/- with the Registry within four weeks, considering the substantial arrears and market valuation. The amount is to be placed in an interest-bearing fixed deposit pending final adjudication of the Special Leave Petitions, set for hearing in July 2024. This decision reinforces the interim protection of landlords' financial interests during ongoing litigation. [Paras 21-25]

Civil Law – Refund of Stamp Duty – Appeal against High Court’s dismissal of demand for refund of stamp duty paid towards unexecuted conveyance deed – Appellant was defrauded by vendor who had already sold the property to a third party – Despite timely online application for refund, appellant's request was denied based on limitation period – Supreme Court examined statutory provisions and relevant rules – Held, appellant’s right to refund cannot be barred by limitation – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside, and refund directed [Paras 2-17].

Stamp Duty Refund – Appellant applied for refund within six months but cancellation deed was executed later due to vendor's unavailability – High Court's strict interpretation of limitation period found misplaced – Supreme Court emphasized just treatment over technicalities, referencing previous judgments on similar issues – Legal principles settled in Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech case applied – Appellant’s bonafide actions and pursuit of remedies justified refund [Paras 8-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Impugned orders dated 02.08.2019, 09.06.2015, and 25.02.2016 set aside – Respondents directed to refund the stamp duty amount of Rs. 25,34,400/- to the appellant – State should act fairly and not rely solely on technicalities when dealing with citizens [Para 17].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Appeal against High Court’s orders granting bail to accused in a double murder case – High Court’s orders set aside due to failure to consider the gravity of the offense, the role attributed to the accused, and the potential for witness tampering – Accused directed to surrender within two weeks [Paras 2, 6-7, 26, 28, 31-33, 35].

Evidence Evaluation – Supreme Court noted that the High Court overlooked substantial evidence against the accused, including consistent witness testimonies and the severity of the crime – Previous criminal history of the accused and allegations of threatening witnesses while on bail further justified setting aside the bail orders [Paras 30-32, 34].

Decision – Quashing of Bail Orders – Held – The appeals are allowed, and the orders granting bail to the respondents are quashed. The respondents are directed to surrender within two weeks. The observations made are limited to the issue of bail and do not reflect the merits of the ongoing trial [Paras 35-36].